The board approved his pay package 2 times. The share price when the initial operating milestones were set was roughly $21 and he was able to raise the share price to >$450. Regardless of anyone's opinion on Elon Musk, the pay package was obviously valid. His performance was directly incentivized by tying it to business outcomes which at the time were considered completely impossible. The board approved this twice. This is politicized garbage. I am not a lawyer but it says the initial denial of his package were for procedural violations and undue influence. However, this is the case in all founder run companies. It seems pretty straight forward and fair, they set absurd milestones and quotas which, in the event they were met, would mean the company would be in tremendous and unthinkable financial position. All shareholders were handsomely rewarded.
There's a pretty obvious argument that an absurd P/E ratio means Elon did a much better job pumping the stock then he did running the company. Should the board members get sued for being a lapdog board? Should the GameStop management have received comparable compensation relative to the size of GameStop? Would that have gotten knocked down in a lawsuit?